A beautiful example of theological reasoning

Post Reply New Topic

This thread has me thinking about a book my son was assigned to read last year, 6th grade. It's called "The Giver" and it slowly leads you to see all the problems that trying to create a so-called utopian society, with no suffering, created. Amazingly deep and thought provoking and, yes, a children's book (who said education no longer challenges children to think?). The theologian quoted may not have stated the argument with adequate depth and resonance, and some of it seems just like platitudes, but he does have a point in that there is some reason for suffering, even if it is very difficult to see. But, perhaps, reading "The Giver" would provoke more applicable analysis.

So why would God allow suffering? Because He knows what the world would be like if He buffered it. It would be like the frightening world you come to understand in "The Giver."

Fuzzy, I am sorry you feel it's like arguing that you get to be the whipping boy. I don't think it is.

I can't actually let this one go. And I think you people are failing to see just how profound this passage is in its potential to transform our humanity.

It's the job of someone educated in political matters to devise specific strategies for society's woes in a more comprehensive and detailed way. General and broader plans would eventually trickle down to impact upon each individual.

But it's the job of religion - I would have thought - to teach us a way of dealing with these woes with instructions that target each of us as an individual. And the effects supposedly would broaden outwards to affect -many- people.

Now suffering is a given and we can't realistically devise a plan to eliminate it from our world in any immediate way. And it's probably a very confusing aspect of our existence for most people. To tell them to just accept it or wait until their final exhalation is not only cruel - but it robs people of an opportunity to develop their minds in an extraordinary way.

Because you see -compassion- is a most underestimated state of mind. Not only is it a wish for the suffering to be alleviated - but it is accompanied by a sense of committment and responsibility that moves one from the concerns for one's own self to the outer world around one. Can you imagine what kind of world we would be living in if everyone did this? It would probably reduce a vast majority of the world's suffering in a single moment of it being thought by people on a large world scale. This is because a lot of the suffering is caused by self-interest (by both individuals and nations). Wars, poverty, diseases from a lack of health care, environmental damage - all result from self-interest that seeks gain for oneself at the expense of another.

Compassion can only come about by thinking deeply and intensely of another's situation of suffering. The more thought put into it - then the more intense the reaction. As I stated before - this reaction is not about pity, or making oneself emotional. Instead it's about making one feel responsible for the wellbeing of others. The intensity of the concern we each have for others determines how greatly we can reduce the causes of suffering - that cause being our own self-concern.

So IMO whether this person is a scholar or a theologian - if the message they choose to share with others is focused on suffering and the way to make that suffering -meaningful- then it is a message imbued with the highest intention for humanity. Considering the state of our world this message is the most realistic option we could hope for in achieving an alleviation of our woes, provided people interpet it accurately and mingle it with their own minds.

Even if compassion can't prevent natural disasters, accidents, sufferings of old age - those unfortunate experiences are not wasted if people use them to realise the situation of humanity rather than revolting from them with fear and confusion and then using their own fear as an excuse to further pamper to their own needs whilst neglecting the needs of others.

It saddens me that this is even a debate - that people can't see what a world of difference compassion could bring. But then again - the beauty of debate is that it inspires further thought. And the level of compassion required to affect a change would require more than an intellectual understanding. There's an attitude that needs to be turned inside-out and then over onto its head.

That's a subjective emotional response that is ignorantly superimposing spirituality into a post that was purely about compassion. So I could say the same thing about emotions - shove them - because I really don't see how they could help things. The whole point of the post was to discuss ways of alleviating the suffering we know to exist. Not to further exacerbate it by everyone here getting all emotional.

One of the points I'm trying to make is that if we all accept each others' suffering it distances us from our own suffering and we are less likely to suffer emotionally from our own woes. That's how it helps us.

I found the comment about finding peace in heaven to be irrelevant to this discussion. It seemed to be invoking an unnecessary emotional response in an attempt to counter what I was saying. But I wasn't actually talking about spirituality - I was talking about life.

Arcanyn - your interpretation is moronic to say the least. I highly doubt the man would be suggesting we create more suffering for each other. And I'm quite sure you don't believe that either.

It might be ghoulish - but it's reality. Without acknowledging it people will continue to turn away from it. By understanding others' sufferings it compels one to take more responsibility for the state of the world.

And imagine if there was a collective-compassion for the ducks - how much more fortunate their lives would be then if no one could tolerate their suffering so refrained from killing them and helped them preserve their suitable habitat?!